Nice example. I was learning Rust over Christmas so I see how it works. But one issue I have is that from the outside it's not obvious that your `close()` method will take ownership of `self`. I'd probably prefer it if there was some (compiler-enforced) convention that made it obvious to clients that `close()` would consume `self`.
As it stands, Rust code can break the principle of least surprise, since what happens in a method can affect the associated instance variable (in this case `open_socket`). A user could easily write several lines of code and only discover that `open_socket` has been moved into a method at compile-time.
I found myself having very small coding-compile iterations when writing in Rust to catch issues like this (but that was also undoubtedly due to the fact I was learning).
As it stands, Rust code can break the principle of least surprise, since what happens in a method can affect the associated instance variable (in this case `open_socket`). A user could easily write several lines of code and only discover that `open_socket` has been moved into a method at compile-time.
I found myself having very small coding-compile iterations when writing in Rust to catch issues like this (but that was also undoubtedly due to the fact I was learning).
Is there a pro tip to avoid this issue?